P. Wms, 186, and in Yale v, Bayle, supra, Lord Chief Justice Eyre is said to nave held, "That though a trader in the country does not appoint a carrier, yet if the goods be embezzled he shall be liable, because he leaves it in the breast of the person to whom he gives the order to send them by whom he pleases." The carrier is generally considered the agent of the buyer, and not of the seller Dut-ton v. Solomonson, 3 1! & P. 584; Anderson v. Hodgson, 5 Price, 630 As soon, therefore, as the goods are in the due and regular course of conveyance, they are at the risk of the purchaser, and not before. Diversy v. Kellogg, 44 Ill. 114; Ullock v. Redelin, Dan & 1,. 6; and see Bull v. Robison, 28 E. L. & E, 586; s.c. 10 Exch. 342.

1 Where A. was to deliver hogs during the "first half of August," to be weighed at a certain place, he was given until noon of the 16th, till which time he was to keep hogs at the scab's. Kirkpatrick v. Alexander, 60 Ind 95, See Croninger v. Crocker, G2 N. Y. 151; McClartey v. Gokey, 31 Ia. 505. - K.

If the contract be to deliver the thing ordered at the residence or place of business of the buyer, the seller is liable, although such delivery becomes impossible, unless it becomes so through the act of the buyer. (d) If the seller refuse to deliver it at a * time and place agreed on, and it perish afterwards without his fault, he is liable for it. But if he be ready, and the vendee wrongfully refuse or neglect to receive it, the seller is not liable, unless the thing perishes through his gross and wanton negligence. And if the vendee unreasonably neglect or refuse to comply with conditions precedent to delivery, or to receive the goods on delivery, the seller may, after due delay and proper precautions, resell them, and hold the buyer responsible for any deficit in the price. (e)1 It is common, and generally advisable, to sell them at auction; but this is not necessary. (f) If the seller sell on credit, the goods are to be delivered without payment; but if the buyer becomes insolvent before the time of delivery, the seller may demand security, and refuse to deliver the goods without it. (g) If goods are sold " on a credit of-----months, or cash at ------ discount," and the buyer after delivery of the goods pays a part in cash, he will be held to have elected cash and not credit, and may be sued for the balance, discount off.(h)

(aa) Glen v. Whitaker, 51 Barb. 451. See Bradley v. Wheeler, 4 Rob. 18, and Hills v. Lynch, 3 Rob. 42.

(b) The vendor, in delivering goods to a carrier, must exercise due care and diligence, so as to provide the consignee with a remedy over against the carrier. See Buckman v. Levi, 3 Camp. 414; Clarke v. Hutchins, 14 East, 475; Alexander v. Gardner, 1 Bing. N. C. 671; Dawes v. Feck, 8 T. R. 330.

(c) Cothay v. Tnte, 3 Camp. 129; Brown on Sales, § 526; 2 Kent, Com. 500. - If it has been the usage between the parties, in former dealings, for the vendor to insure, or if he receive specific instructions to insure in any particular case, he is bound to insure. Id.; London Law Mag. vol. 4, p. 359. And see Smith v. Lascelles, 2 T. R. 189.

(d) Hayward v. Scougall, 2 Camp. 56, n.; Atkinson v. Ritchie, 10 East, 530; De Medeiros v. Hill, 5 C. & P. 182. It was here held, that where a ship-owner, knowing that a port is blockaded, enters into a contract with a merchant for the delivery of a cargo there, if he afterwards refuses to go, he is liable to an action for the breach of the contract; but whether the damages are to be nominal or otherwise must depend upon the opinion of the jury, as to whether, if the vessel had gone to the place, she would have been able to get in. - So it is no defence to a breach of a contract to deliver certain goods at a certain time, that such goods could not be had in the market at that time. Gilpins v. Consequa, Pet. C. C. 85; Youqua v. Nixon, id. 221.

1 A carrier, in the eye of the law, is a bailee of the person to whom, not by whom, goods are sent. Higgins v. Murray, 73 N. Y. 252; Cairo Bank v. Crocker, 111 Mass. 163, 166; Arnold v. Prout, 51 N. H. 587; Hall v. Gaylor, 37 Conn. 550; Magruder v. Gage, 33 Md. 344. See Garretson v. Selby, 37 Ia. 529. Delivery on a vessel for carriage, bill of lading being taken, is not a delivery to the buyer, but to the captain as bailee for delivery to the person named in the bill of lading, for whom they are to be carried. Gabarron v. Kreeft, L. R. 10 Ex. 274, 281. The delivery, however, to a buyer of a delivery order on a carrier, together with a sample of the goods, passes the title to him, whose loss they are if afterwards destroyed, and he is liable for the price. Webster v. Granger, 78 Ill. 230. Hobart v. Littlefield, 13 R. I. 341, decided that goods delivered at the wharf of a carrier with notice to him are prima fade, at least at the buyer's risk, though sold " free on board," and destroyed before actually put on board. See Mich. Central R. Co. v. Phillips, 60 Ill. 190, and Finn v. Western R. Co. 112 Mass. 524. - K.

If no place of delivery be specially expressed in the contract, the store, shop, farm, or warehouse, where the article is sold, made, grown, or deposited, is, in general, the place of delivery. (i) If expressly deliverable to the vendee, but no place is named, it may be delivered to him where he is, or at his house, or at his place of business, except so far as this option of the seller is controlled by the nature of the article. For if the purchaser bought a load of cotton to be worked in his mill, it cannot, under an * agreement of delivery, be delivered at his distant dwelling-house; nor should a load of hay for his stable, or a cooking range for his kitchen, be delivered at his store on the wharf.

Some cases distinguish between the duty of delivery arising from a contract of sale, and a contract to deliver goods in payment of a precedent debt. In the first case the buyer must take them where they are, and in the latter the owner must deliver them at such place as shall be reasonable from the nature of the case, or shall be pointed out by the party receiving them. (j)